CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 11 juillet 2013

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 169 December 2013 Morice v. France (referral) - 29369/10 Judgment 11.7.2013 [Section V] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Lawyer’s conviction for complicity with a newspaper in the defamation of investigating judges: case referred to the Grand Chamber In 2000 a general meeting of the judges sitting at the Paris tribunal de grande instance was held in Paris, to examine, among other business, the situation of judge M. The press had announced that the Minister of Justice had submitted to the High Council of the Judiciary a file concerning the Church of Scientology, which she was investigating and in which there had been irregularities. The applicant was acting for one of the parties. A few months later the applicant and one of his colleagues sent a letter to the Minister of Justice in connection with the investigation into the death of Judge Borrel, whose widow the applicant was also representing. They stated that they were again complaining to the Minister of Justice about the “conduct of judges M. and L.L., [which was] entirely contrary to the principles of impartiality and loyalty” and asked for an investigation to be carried out by the General Inspectorate of Judicial Services into “the numerous problems which had been brought to light in the context of the judicial investigation”. The next day Le Monde published an article stating that Mrs   Borrel’s lawyers had “vigorously” challenged judge M. before the Minister of Justice. It was specified that judge M. was accused by the applicant and his colleague of, inter alia , “conduct that was completely contrary to the principles of impartiality and loyalty” and that she seemed “to have omitted to number and transmit an item from the proceedings to her successor”. The two judges in question lodged a complaint for public defamation of a civil servant against the editor-in-chief of Le Monde , the journalist who had written the article and the applicant. The applicant was convicted of being an accessory to public defamation of a civil servant, ordered to pay a fine of EUR   4,000 and, jointly and severally with his two co-defendants, EUR   7,500 in damages to each of the judges. By a judgment of 11 July 2013, a Chamber of the Court concluded, by six votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article   10. In particular, the Court noted that the applicant had publicly attacked, in a widely-read daily newspaper, the investigating judge and the functioning of the judicial system only one day after having written to the Minster of Justice, and without awaiting the outcome of his complaint. Even if his purpose had been to alert the public to possible problems in the functioning of the judicial system, which the Court acknowledged to be a matter of public interest, the applicant had done so in particularly virulent terms, and in taking the risk not only of influencing the Minister of Justice, but also the investigation chamber to which his complaint concerning the Church of Scientology case had been submitted. It went without saying that lawyers were entitled to freedom of expression too, and to comment in public on the administration of justice, provided that their criticism did not overstep certain bounds. Regard being had to the key role of lawyers in this field, it was legitimate to expect them to contribute to the proper administration of justice and thus to maintain public confidence therein. In the light of all these circumstances, the Court concluded that, in expressing himself as he had, the applicant had behaved in a manner which exceeded the limits that lawyers had to respect in publicly criticising the justice system. That finding was confirmed by the seriousness of the accusations made in the article. Thus, in the circumstances of the case, the domestic courts could have been satisfied that the comments in question were serious and insulting to judge M., that they were capable of unnecessarily undermining public confidence in the judicial system – given that the investigation had been assigned to another judge several months previously – and that there were sufficient grounds to convict the applicant. On 9 December 2013 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicant’s request. (See also July and SARL Libération v. France , 20893/03, 14   February 2008, Information Note   105 )   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes